Background:

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttarakhand considered a criminal appeal against the judgement of the High Court of Uttarakhand which upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 363 and Section 366A of the IPC.   

Facts:

The prosecution alleged that the appellant had kidnapped a minor girl along with other accused and committed offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 366, 376 read with Sections 149 and 368 of the IPC.  

The prosecutrix in her testimony claimed that talks of her marriage with the appellant were going on however, since they both belonged to different castes, her father was opposed to such marriage. The doctor who examined the prosecutrix soon after the alleged incident claimed that her condition was overall normal and no bodily injury or swelling was found in her person. On the basis of this evidence, sexual assault on the prosecutrix was completely ruled out.   

The accused was acquitted by the trial court of the more serious charges against him but convicted under Section 363 and 366A of IPC. When the matter went in appeal, the High Court also upheld the conviction. 

While deciding the criminal appeal, the Supreme Court made an observation that bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault. The hon’ble Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s Handbook on Gender stereotypes (2023) and quoted:   

“Different people react differently to traumatic events. For example, the death of a parent may cause one person to cry publicly whereas another person in a similar situation may not exhibit any emotion in public. Similarly, a woman’s reaction to being sexually assaulted or raped by a man may vary based on her individual characteristics. There is no “correct” or “appropriate” way in which a survivor or victim behaves.”  

Decision of the court:

The Court highlighted that in the present matter, the prosecutrix herself claimed that she was not forcibly taken away by the appellant. Moreover, the Apex Court raised doubts about the minor age of the prosecutrix thus, the ingredients under Section 366A of IPC (Offence for abduction with intent to engage in illicit sexual intercourse) were not established by the Prosecution.  

Conclusion:

The Court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the judgement of the High Court.  

While the appeal was allowed in this matter as ingredients of the charges were not sufficiently made out by the Prosecution, the observation of the Supreme Court holds great relevance in similar cases involving allegations of sexual assault against women. Through this order, the Apex court busted the myth that sexual assault must leave visible injuries. It reinforced the belief that lack of bodily injuries or absence of immediate hue or cry does not negate the possibility of sexual assault.   

Credits: Adv. Tusharika Vig